St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-17
The Mills Of JUSTICE Turning
Out Large CRISIS Just at
Present. dot
A Suit in the Federal Courts
to Eject Settlers From In
demnity Lands. ~
DR.. Vests Suit to Recover
His Salary From the First
Presbyterian Church.
Cochran & Walsh Accused
Of Double Dealing--A Ha-
beas Corpus Case. 70.

John NJ. Naughton, lately of Oregon,
the successor of Col. w. P. Clough, as
counsel for the Northern Pacific Ry.,
has filed bill in equity for the North
ern Pacific against the United States,
and Peter Johnson. Andrew johnson,
Thomas NJ. Sibley, August LindblOm S.
NJ. Fawsette, and c. ID. Bush, residents
of StearnS county, who have located
upon some of the indemnity lands of
the Northern Pacific in Dakota. The
bill seems to have been prompted by
the construction of the recent indemni-
ty lands decision from the Office of the
secretary of the interior. The railroad
company falls back upon the act and
grant of July 2, 1864, which gave the
company twenty alternate. Odd-num-
bered sections per mile on each side of
the railroad in the territories, and ten
alternate sections per mile on each
side in any state. Section 3 gave the
Northern Pacific the right to select
other lands as indemnity lands when
ever, prior to the time of the grant or
selection. any of the said sections had
been taken up by settlers; and these in
demnity lands were to be selected under
the direction of the secretary of the in
terror, to be odd numbered, alternate
sections, not more than ten miles be-
yond the first limits. The original
grant, the company claims, gave the
company a forty-mile limit. The
Northern Pacific also comes forward
armed with the joint resolution of May
81, 1870, which allowed the company to
make up its deficiency by selecting odd
numbered sections within ten miles of
the road on each side beyond the limits
originally prescribed in the, charter:
The company contends that the act of
1864 prescribed two limits: one, the
primary limit, by implication, the
other, the indemnity limit, by
express enactment; and that
the limits prescribed in the joint reso-
luton were beyond the limits prescribed
in the original charter. The company
located its road through Wisconsin,
Minnesota and Dakota prior to Nov. q,
1871, and on that date it filed the map
of its line in the general land office, the
map being approved. Under the direc-
ton of the secretary of the interior, the
limits as prescribed in the act OF 1866,
were designated as the twenty, thirty
and forty~mile limits, the first as the
primary limit, the second as the indem-
nifty limit, and the third, under, the
joint resolution of May l, 1870, asi the.
second indemnity limit; and Commits
siOner Willis Dudley withdrew the
! lands from all settlers claims, and in
structed the officers of the st. Cloud
land office to do accordingly. This
| order -
DID NOT AFFECT
| bona fde settlers who had Initiated
their claims prior to Nov. 81. Previous
to 1888 the company went on SELECTING
| its indemnity lands in the first and sec
| ond limits, and these selections were,
| certified to by Register Freeman and.
Receiver Mitchell, of the st. Cloud land
office. ~. .3,:,
But there was not enough land to-
make up the grant of the Northern Pa
| cific in Minnesota, so the company pro-
| ceeded to select its indemnity lands in
| Dakota, its selections there being certi-
| fled by to by Register Austin and Re
| ceiver Pugh, of the Fargo land Office.
| The defendants claim that the joint
| resolution of 1870 does not create sec
| ond indemnity limit, and that the act
| of 1864 does not give the company the
company the right to select land in Da-
kOta to make up the deficiency of the
| grant in Minnesota. Defendants located
on land in Dakota in the supposed
| second indemnity grant Nov. Is, 1887.
| The company claims that from
| 1871 until this year, the commissioners
| of the general land office have invaria-
| bly, construed the joint resolution as
| creating second indemnity belt. The
road has surveyed about 100000 acres of
this indemnity belt, upon which are
twenty villages with total population
of 5000 people, and improvements
amounting to S5.000,0O0, according to the
story. The officials of the land offices at
st. Cloud and Fargo, acting for the
| United States, claim that the joint reso-
| luton of 1870 did not create second
indemnity limit. Upon the lands in
volved in the suit is said to be $4,000
worth of timber, and the company
claims that Defendants johnson ct al.
are trespasSing upon the land and cut
| ting the timber. The company prayS
for a hearing; that the lands
| be adjudged as belonging to the
company; that the United States
be compelled to issue the patents to the
company; that if the United States has
| granted any patents to any of the de-
| PENDANTS. they be adjudged to be simply
holding the same in trust for the North
ern Pacific; that if the defendants have
acquired an equal or greater right to the
land than the Northern Pacific, the Gem
pany be entitled to recover $4,000 DAM
ages of the United States, and that an
| injunction be issued restraining the
United States from granting any pa
tents to the defendants for these lands.
and enjoining defendants from treSpass-
ing upon the lands. Judge Nelson has
issued orders to show cause, and hear
ing has been set for Dec. u, at 10 a. m.
1t will be very interesting case. as it
involves ali important principle. Should
it be decided i'm favor of the Northern
Pacific there is 10 saying what cOmpli-
ot-iSA a